Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

The scenario examines that one universe. If we can theoretically "freeze" it and say the specific arrangement of all that exists in the universe is a distinct thing then there is only one now.

Bloody hell. You dont care what we others write , do you? You could as well say that the eatth is flat, that is how ridiculous you sound.

If we "freeze the universe" then to some the pole is entirely inside the tunne, for some it hasnt got so far yet and for others it will never be totally inside. All depending on their current relative speeds.

 

[Juma]

No I'm not and to think so is ridiculous.

I am merely putting forth a thought experiment to try to examine an idea.

So you aren't using your imagination to attempt to discern something about reality?

I am not saying imaginary things, like infinity, are real.

Just don't forget that the concept "finite" is far more imaginary than the concept of infinity. Finite objects require something to be "separate" from the reality it comes from, and nothing is actually separate.

True. objects are the imagination of our mind. There are no objects "out there".

 

[untermensche]

The scenario examines that one universe. If we can theoretically "freeze" it and say the specific arrangement of all that exists in the universe is a distinct thing then there is only one now.

Bloody hell. You dont care what we others write , do you? You could as well say that the eatth is flat, that is how ridiculous you sound.

If we "freeze the universe" then to some the pole is entirely inside the tunne, for some it hasnt got so far yet and for others it will never be totally inside. All depending on their current relative speeds.

Bloody hell. I could easily say the same thing.

In a frozen universe there is nobody seeing anything. There is just an order to all that exists in that universe.

One order. One "now".

 

[untermensche]

No I'm not and to think so is ridiculous.

I am merely putting forth a thought experiment to try to examine an idea.

So you aren't using your imagination to attempt to discern something about reality?

I'm not claiming there is a frozen moment in time or time could be sliced into one. It is only a theoretical conception.

I am not saying imaginary things, like infinity, are real.

Just don't forget that the concept "finite" is far more imaginary than the concept of infinity. Finite objects require something to be "separate" from the reality it comes from, and nothing is actually separate.

First of all that doesn't make infinity real and it just isn't true. It wasn't true the first time you claimed it and won't be true if you claim it again.

You are separate from me and you are finite. You had a beginning and will have an end.

All is finite. At least all we can see. There is nothing we can see that will exist forever. And nothing we can see has existed forever. All we can see around us had a beginning in time.

 

[untermensche]

True. objects are the imagination of our mind. There are no objects "out there".

What do you use to eat your soup?

This to me is ridiculous.

The way things appear to us is the way they are. They are separate in some way.

Just because we have a deeper understanding does not mean we aren't making images with our brain of things as they exist in the world.

 

[George S]

I was tired, and I must have forgotten what my point was. So disregard my "Okay, I see" response.

When the clocks come back together, they will show different times. This is evidence that time dilation goes beyond just perception and subjectivity. Most importantly, it shows that one event, the mechanical process of the clock in space, happened before the identical process of the clock on Earth.

A better example is when two identical clocks start at the same time. Then if one clock enters a stronger gravitational field, it will objectively run slower than the other clock.

Suppose, as I said, we freeze the whole universe. Take a snapshot.

A snapshot is a partial derivative with respect to time.

And suppose we label all the frozen matter and energy and the stuff we don't even know what it is as; X.

Is X one thing, or is it many things?

Many.

If it is one thing then there is only one "now". "Now" representing a single configuration of matter and energy and other stuff.

And will have a (probabilistic) future based on the TISE. (Time Independent Schroedinger Equation)

 

[Juma]

Bloody hell. You dont care what we others write , do you? You could as well say that the eatth is flat, that is how ridiculous you sound.

If we "freeze the universe" then to some the pole is entirely inside the tunne, for some it hasnt got so far yet and for others it will never be totally inside. All depending on their current relative speeds.

Bloody hell. I could easily say the same thing.

In a frozen universe there is nobody seeing anything. There is just an order to all that exists in that universe.

One order. One "now".

This is getting boring. You are just ignorant.

It is time (!) to realize that time is more complex than you think.

Time is a dimension, just as x, y an z. Up, down, left or wathever you want to call the space dimensions.
Past and future are just distances in that dimension.

 

[Juma]

True. objects are the imagination of our mind. There are no objects "out there".

What do you use to eat your soup?

This to me is ridiculous.

The way things appear to us is the way they are. They are separate in some way.

The objects are in our heads only. Of course the separation is mostly a good model of the real world, otherwise it wouldnt work. But not always, things that really are separate seems to be one and things that are very tight seemts to be different objects. We can handle this, but that doesnt change the fact that objects is in our mind only. really, it shouldnt be so hard for a logical person to you to grasp this.

 

[George S]

There have been many the philosopher, Unter-, who has wrestled with this. One is the "growing loaf" analogy.

Each new moment grows on the leading edge of the loaf. Reality is all of the existing loaf and none beyond now.

A time-slice taken through the loaf is a snapshot.
________________________________________

Consider a here-and-now. Somewhere at some time. A point in 4D space time.

Angle a second cut through that point in the loaf. This is a different "snapshot" with different points from the first cut. Both slices are equally valid views of reality.

(The above metaphor misses a lot, but I hope it helps. Instead of time-slice it is a partial derivative. The loaf is called a manifold. Almost everything anyone says about changing reality can be expressed in mathematical language. No, everything. But not all things that can be said in mathematical language can be translated back very easily. Quantum entanglement is spooky action at a distance. Not the ordinary action at a distance, but so weird Einstein named it 'spooky.' Two points share a 'now' when there is no possible time-slice through the loaf that hits them both. Experimentally confirmed on the Canary Islands where electrons have been teleported miles across the sea at greater than the speed of light [after establishing a laser beam that takes the usual speeds to connect].)

 

[George S]

H

....
Imagine a V. Rotate it in 3D and get a cone standing on its end. Now do the same with an X. You end up with two cones balanced at a point.

Each point has a light-cone. All the past in one cone, all the future in the other. The sphere we see around us is the content of our past light cone, and the location of the future light cone. A photon on its way to us is in our future light cone. Stuff so far away that light could never reach us is outside both. Stuff outside the cone is called space-like separated from the point and can neither have been affected by nor ever will be. Stuff within either cone is called time-like separated from the point.

Quantum entanglement has space-like separation. Spooky.

 

[ryan]

I do not know how to explain my argument without using at least 10 paragraphs.

Do you think that frozen snapshot is one thing or infinite things?

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but a steady state of the universe is inconceivable if you accept the theories of relativity. You would actually have to constantly change the universe to make it into a steady state for your perspective, so I think it's impossible.

It would take many paragraphs to explain my argument.

Is a specific arrangement one thing or infinite?

Well, unless I don't understand something about the implications of infinity - which is entirely possible - then I still have to say that infinite time is a fallacy. Although, I have this feeling that I will find a loophole or someone will convince a loophole exists.

 

[another1]

Where does the "re" part of the word reality come from, and how is it meant to be determined I beg you? I would look that up but someone else is supposed to do the thinking. Also, why can the word "then" be used to refer to the past or the present in English? Why is it that each keystroke is in the past, making me a futuristic illusion or expectation? A steady vibration is past, present and future though, isn't it? I was under the impression from toilet reading that a vibration makes up reality stuff but those books scare me and I stopped reading them. Can a science person talk about a vibration, how it applies to reality, or conducts reality completely? Thank you for your reply then. Not "then" figuratively, just a word I like to use.

 

[bleubird]

Why is thread even in Nat Sci?
80 plus pages about what?
Mod needs to create a place for this kind of discussion.

 

[untermensche]

Why is thread even in Nat Sci?
80 plus pages about what?
Mod needs to create a place for this kind of discussion.

It is a discussion that touches on both science and philosophy. You see, page after page of people examining implications of relativity. Either a science or a philosophy forum is the proper forum for this discussion. Even if that upsets the obsessive nature of some that feel all discussions have only one proper place.

The question of whether or not it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of real things is not one we could use science to answer until science is able to observe all things. But we must limit the discussion to known science, which is part of the rules of the game. We also have logic.

 

[untermensche]

Do you think that frozen snapshot is one thing or infinite things?

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but a steady state of the universe is inconceivable if you accept the theories of relativity. You would actually have to constantly change the universe to make it into a steady state for your perspective, so I think it's impossible.

It would take many paragraphs to explain my argument.

This to me sounds like a cop out. The frozen universe is of course conceivable. We can conceive of all that we see frozen, not moving. And then of course behind this conception all things that move in the universe that we can't see but know exist are also not moving.

I think what is bothering you is that same old imaginary thing called infinity. You think it is conceivable to divide the universe infinitely. But there is a limit to which you can divide time and any further division is meaningless.

That real limit would be the frozen section of time.

Although, I have this feeling that I will find a loophole or someone will convince a loophole exists.

That's just normal scientific thinking. When things are only established with logical argument, or mathematics, and not evidence they are very tenuous. But scientists know there are some things they can't presently answer with evidence. Like what, if anything, is beyond the big bang?

 

[Kharakov]

So you aren't using your imagination to attempt to discern something about reality?

I'm not claiming there is a frozen moment in time or time could be sliced into one. It is only a theoretical conception.

If your imaginary construct is an accurate description of reality, the construct corresponds to reality (it may not have a 1 to 1 correspondence, however). In fact, reality itself is Godel incomplete in the sense that every state has another metastate related to it...

I am not saying imaginary things, like infinity, are real.

Just don't forget that the concept "finite" is far more imaginary than the concept of infinity. Finite objects require something to be "separate" from the reality it comes from, and nothing is actually separate.

First of all that doesn't make infinity real and it just isn't true. It wasn't true the first time you claimed it and won't be true if you claim it again. You are separate from me and you are finite. You had a beginning and will have an end.

Eternal (infinite) existence of a substrate that gives arise to all being (finite and infinite) is real. The finite existence of evolving forms within the substrate is real. The infinite existence of evolving forms is real.

Both finites and infinites are real. Both are also imaginary.

All is finite. At least all we can see. All we can see around us had a beginning in time.

Should I assume you are joking like I was when I said that "finite" is far more imaginary than "infinite"?

 

[untermensche]

If your imaginary construct is an accurate description of reality, the construct corresponds to reality (it may not have a 1 to 1 correspondence, however). In fact, reality itself is Godel incomplete in the sense that every state has another metastate related to it...

You are implying the models are a perfect description of reality as opposed to an adequate description. Since the universe is finite, the models don't have to be perfect to be useful. They just have to be adequate to the point that further refinement will not produce a significant difference. There is a point in a finite universe where you can make no more significant refinements since significance has a limit.

Eternal (infinite) existence of a substrate that gives arise to all being (finite and infinite) is real. The finite existence of evolving forms within the substrate is real. The infinite existence of evolving forms is real.

Both finites and infinites are real. Both are also imaginary.

Calling something a "substrate" isn't a magic spell that makes an illogical argument logical.

You can't say some imaginary "substrate" has existed for infinite time anymore than you can say the universe has. It is just a dishonest argument. A theological argument.

Should I assume you are joking like I was when I said that "finite" is far more imaginary than "infinite"?

When your errors are pointed out your sacred truths become jokes.

 

[ryan]

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but a steady state of the universe is inconceivable if you accept the theories of relativity. You would actually have to constantly change the universe to make it into a steady state for your perspective, so I think it's impossible.

It would take many paragraphs to explain my argument.

This to me sounds like a cop out. The frozen universe is of course conceivable. We can conceive of all that we see frozen, not moving. And then of course behind this conception all things that move in the universe that we can't see but know exist are also not moving.

One of the reasons why it is hard to answer this is because I don't know the specifics of a "frozen" universe. Every time I am about to answer I wonder:

1) In what way is the universe frozen? Is it actually frozen to absolute zero, or are you just thinking of a three-dimensional description?

a) If it is just a three-dimensional description, then it is really just a frame of what may be an infinite number of frames which is what the other side of the argument will say.

b) If it is actually a frozen universe, then gravity, if it exists, would still allow orbiting bodies.

I think what is bothering you is that same old imaginary thing called infinity. You think it is conceivable to divide the universe infinitely. But there is a limit to which you can divide time and any further division is meaningless.

If somehow there is a flaw in your logic about infinities, then a slice of time in a continuous universe would only be an infinitesimal moment in time. It would be like taking a natural number out of the set of natural numbers; it wouldn't lessen the set.

I just don't think you can go down this road.

That real limit would be the frozen section of time.

But everything does move. I don't see how this helps your argument for the real universe. And even if everything stops today, what about when things did move? There could still be an infinite number of slices in one second before you stop the universe.

 

[Mageth]

All is finite. At least all we can see. All we can see around us had a beginning in time.

You appear to be claiming that time is one of these finite things, something along the line that time's a real thing and thus there cannot be an infinite amount of it, it can't be infinitely subdivided and so on. Yet here you define these finite things as things that had a beginning in time.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Time is a finite thing that had a beginning in time?

Please attempt to resolve this circularity.

 

[skepticalbip]

nm